1. Full Application Overview Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Competition Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register. July 2012

2. Note About These Slides The slides that are presented on this webinar will be available for download on the Resources page of the i3 website at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/resources.html 2

3. Agenda for Today’s Webinar Development Competition Overview Eligibility Requirements Evidence Standards Selection Criteria & Scoring Submission Guidance 3

4. We cannot answer questions that are applicant-specific “Does this sound like a good idea?” “Does this idea address the absolute priority?” A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html The FAQ document addresses many questions that applicants have asked previously. The Department also plans to update it throughout the competition with questions that applicants submit that are of general applicability. We may not be able to answer all questions received during today’s webinar. If you have additional questions, please send them to the i3 email address: i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov A Few Notes on General Q&A 4

5. i3 Development Competition Pre-application peer review Department announces highly-rated pre-applications Full application peer review Department eligibility review, incl. evidence and prior record of improvement Department announces highest-rated applications Pre-App Period Department publishes pre-application package Applicants register on Grants.gov and CCR Applicants develop pre-application (7 pages) Applicants submit pre-application through Grants.gov Full App Period Department publishes full application package Highly-rated pre-applicants invited to submit full application (25 pages), including project partners and evaluation plans Highly-rated pre-applicants submit full application through Grants.gov Matching Period Highest-rated full applicants secure evidence of required private sector match Highest-rated full applicants submit evidence to the Department for approval and confirmation Department announces awardees 5

6. By Invitation Only Highly-rated pre-applicants have been invited to submit a Development full application. All applications are due by August 17, 2012 at 4:30:00pm Washington, DC time. Late applications and those submitted by non-invitees will not be reviewed Development full applicants will be identified by the Pre-Application PR Award Number and should include this number in their submission Applicants may consider the constructive feedback provided by the peer reviewers when developing the full application for submission 6

7. Eligibility Requirements 7

8. Elements of an Eligible Application Innovations that Support High-Need Students Addresses Absolute Priority and May Address Competitive Preference Priority(ies) LEA or Non Profit with an Allowable Partnership Configuration Record of Achievement and Meets Evidence Standard 15% Cost- Sharing or Matching Requirement 8

9. MUST i3 Applicants Must Serve High-Need Students High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure, or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who: Live in poverty Attend high-minority schools Are far below grade level Are over-age and under- credited Left school before receiving a regular high school diploma Are limited English proficient Are homeless Are in foster care Have been incarcerated Have disabilities Are at-risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time Live in poverty Attend high-minority schools Are far below grade level Are over-age and under- credited Left school before receiving a regular high school diploma Are limited English proficient Are homeless Are in foster care Have been incarcerated Have disabilities Are at-risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Applicants are asked to explain how students they serve are high-need. 9

10. Scale-Up and Validation Priorities Required for all applications Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Promoting STEM Education Parent and Family Engagement Improving Rural Achievement Must address one Absolute Priority Improving Achievement in Persistently Low- Performing Schools College Access and Success Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students Productivity May address up to two Competitive Preferences (0 or 1 point each) Technology Early Learning 10

11. i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants 1)A local educational agency (LEA) 2)A non-profit organization in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools There is no competitive advantage to applying as one type of applicant or the other, but an applicant must meet the relevant eligibility requirements 11

12. Key Definition: Partners Official partner means any of the entities required to be part of a partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA (i.e., a non-profit organization, an LEA, or a consortium of schools). Other partner means any entity, other than the applicant and any official partner, that may be involved in a proposed project. Why This Matters In the case of a partnership application, the partner that is the applicant, and becomes the grantee upon receiving the award, may make sub-grants to one or more of the official partners. 12

13. An LEA…A partnership… The LEA that is the lead applicant must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide) There may not be any subgrants Other partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways A non-profit that is part of the partnership must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide) Any LEA or school in the consortium, or the non-profit with a record of improvement, can be the lead applicant Sub-granting is allowed, but only to LEAs or schools in the consortium, or to non- profits that have a record of improvement Other partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility If you apply as… 13

14. MUST MUST, TO RECEIVE A GRANT Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant An LEA applicant must: 1.Demonstrate that it: (a) significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students or demonstrated success in significantly increasing academic achievement for all groups of students, and (b) made significant improvement in other areas A partnership must: 1.Demonstrate that the non- profit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools 14

15. MUST MUST, TO RECEIVE A GRANT Some Eligibility Requirements Apply to Both Types of Applicants All applicants must: 1.Address one Absolute Priority 2.Meet the evidence requirement – for Development grantees, this is a reasonable hypothesis 3.Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Development grantees, this is 15% of the value of federal funding requested 15

16. Foundation Registry i3 Online hub where potential grantees can post their grant proposals for the i3 competition, and where participating funders can review those proposals to facilitate potential matching funds Simplifies the process for organizations seeking matching foundation funds for their Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation (i3) proposal To learn more about the Foundation Registry i3 please visit: https://www.foundationregistryi3.org/ or email the Foundation Registry i3 team with any further questions about the process at help@foundationregistryi3.org.https://www.foundationregistryi3.org/help@foundationregistryi3.org 16

17. Notes on Eligibility Requirements Applicants should fully address all eligibility requirements in the application IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the eligibility requirements in the full application will not be able to supplement their original application with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible 17

18. Additional Program Requirements MUST All i3 projects must: Conduct an independent project evaluation* o Share broadly the results of any evaluation Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program * Note: The quality of an applicant’s project evaluation is also a selection criterion in the full application review. 18

19. Evidence Standards 19

20. Grant Types and Evidence All applications must meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant they are seeking Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will not be eligible for a grant award, regardless of scores on the selection criteria 20

21. Reasonable Hypothesis: Development Internal Validity and External Validity Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy for at least some participants and settings Practice, Strategy, or Program in Prior Research Prior research conducted is the same as, or similar to, practices and strategies proposed under the Development grant Participants and Settings in Prior Research Participants or settings in prior research may have been more limited than those proposed to receive the treatment under the Development grant Significance of EffectPractice, strategy, or program warrants further study to investigate efficacy Magnitude of EffectBased on prior implementation, the effect magnitude is promising for the target population for the Development project Note: Italicized items may be considered as part of selection criterion B 21

22. Reasonable Hypothesis: Development Cont. An applicant must provide: (1)Evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted; and (2) A rationale for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors 22

23. Reasonable Hypothesis: Development Cont. Applicants should provide information addressing the evidence standards in the full application Applicants either should ensure that all supporting evidence is available from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or should include copies of evidence with the full application IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the evidence requirements in the full application will not be able to supplement their original application with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible 23

24. Questions & Answers 24

25. Selection Criteria & Scoring 25

26. Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Scoring The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers score each application The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores. It is critical to clearly address the selection criteria Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html 26

27. i3 Selection Criteria and Point Allocation Selection Criteria Development Full Application A.Quality of the Project Design25 B.Significance35 C.Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel 20 D.Quality of the Project Evaluation 20 Total Points100 27

28. Balance of Costs with Outcomes of Project Selection Criterion: A. Quality of the Project Design Clarity of Project Goals and Strategy to Achieve Them Cost Effectiveness of Scaling Project to Larger Populations “The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of goals and an explicit strategy, with actions that are (a) aligned with the priorities the eligible applicant is seeking to meet, and (b) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.” “…estimate of the cost of the proposed project, which includes the start up and operating costs per student per year (including indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to be served by the project…an estimate of the costs for the eligible applicant or others (including other partners)…to reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 students.” 28

29. A Word About Scaling Targets… Cost estimates are considered both: To assess the reasonableness of the costs relative to the objectives, design, and potential significance for the total number of students to be served by the proposed project, which is determined by the eligible applicant, and To understand the possible costs for the eligible applicant or others (including other partners) to reach the scaling targets. By contrast: An eligible applicant must propose how many students it will serve under its project and is expected to reach that number of students by the end of the grant period, but that number need not be the same as the scaling targets. Scaling targets help assess cost-effectiveness and ARE NOT a number all applicants are expected to reach 29

30. 30 Balance of Costs with Outcomes of Project Selection Criterion: A. Quality of the Project Design Balance of Costs with Outcomes of Project Sustainability Designed into Project Plan “The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.” “The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the eligible applicant and any other partners at the end of the Development grant.” 30

31. Notes on Selection Criterion: A. Quality of the Project Design 31 Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: What the applicant proposes to do in the project (i.e., goals and strategy) How activities relate to stated goals and strategies What the costs of those activities are Why those costs are sufficient and reasonable to achieve the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project Outcomes of the proposed project, and how the project costs would change if the project were scaled to serve a larger number of students 31

32. Selection Criterion: B. Significance 32 “The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.” “The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study.” “The extent to which the eligible applicant demonstrates that, if funded, the proposed project likely will have a positive impact, as measured by the importance or magnitude of the effect, on improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and completion rates.” Exceptional Approach to Addressing Selected Priority Develop and Advance the Field Extent and Likelihood of Impact (e.g., prior evidence, statistical significance of research) 32

33. Notes on Selection Criterion: B. Significance 33 Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: What is exceptional about how the proposed project addresses the absolute priority under which you are submitting an application How the project fits into and would advance theory, knowledge, and practice in the field (as opposed to being new or important only for the entities or localities being served with grant funds) Quantify the impact if the proposed project is successful and why the applicant expects the proposed project to have the described impact 33

34. Selection Criterion C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel Whether There Is a Viable Plan to Carry Out the Project “The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks, as well as tasks related to the sustainability and scalability of the proposed project.” “The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director and key project personnel, especially in managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project.” Team’s Experience Leading Projects Like the One Proposed 34

35. 35 Notes on Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel 35 Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the team’s prior experiences have prepared them for implementing the proposed project successfully 35

36. Selection Criterion D. Quality of Project Evaluation Understanding of Implementation and Intermediate Outcomes of Success Evaluation Includes Information to Support Follow-on Scaling or Other Activities Sufficient Funding to Carry Out Evaluation “The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.” “The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient information about the key elements and approach of the project to facilitate further development, replication, or testing in other settings.” “The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.” 36

37. Notes on Selection Criterion: D. Quality of Project Evaluation 37 Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: The key evaluation questions and how the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions What implementation and performance data the evaluation will generate and how the evaluation will provide data during the grant period to indicate whether the project is on track to meet its goals Whether the budget allocates sufficient resources to support the planned evaluation 37

38. Guidance on Evaluation Plans Applicants should present clear, detailed evaluation plans. High-quality evaluations should include: Key questions and proposed methods for addressing them Logic model connecting inputs with intermediate and final outcomes Sampling plan that addresses how project will implement strategies at proposed scale Summary of data collection measures and methods Justification of budget Qualifications of proposed independent evaluation staff For experimental and quasi-experimental studies: how treatment and control/comparison groups will be formed and plan for measuring treatment/control contrast on key implementation and outcome variables 38

39. Questions & Answers 39

40. Submission Guidance 40

41. Parts of a Complete Application Part A  Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria Quality of the Project Design Significance Quality of the Management Plan Quality of the Project Evaluation Budget Narrative Form ED 524 Section C Eligible applicants must also provide a detailed budget narrative that describes their proposed multi-year project activities and the costs associated with those activities as well as all costs associated with carrying out the project.  Other Attachments Form Upload appendices here Part B ED Standard Forms  Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)  Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424  Department of Education Budget Summary Form (ED 524) Sections A & B  Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) Assurances/Certifications  GEPA Section 427  Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants  Assurances – Non- Construction Programs (SF 424B)  Grants.gov Lobby Form (formerly ED 80-0013 form)  i3 Applicant Information Sheet (http://www.seiservices.com/i 3AIS2012/)http://www.seiservices.com/i 3AIS2012/ 41

42. Completing the Applicant Information Sheet Applicants must complete this form, which provides information that is crucial for the peer review process. In previous years, applicants have failed to submit this form or have submitted it in an unusable format, which impedes peer review. To complete this form: 1. Go to the following Website: http://www.seiservices.com/i3AIS2012/ http://www.seiservices.com/i3AIS2012/ 2. Upon submission a PDF will be generated 3. Save the generated form in Adobe Acrobat as a PDF 4. Upload the PDF to the Other Attachments Form of the application DO NOT: Print the form, complete it, and scan it as a PDF; save the form in any format other than PDF; forget to complete and include this form. 42

43. Registering for Grants.gov Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov site (www.Grants.gov).www.Grants.gov The Central Contracting Registry (CCR) will be phased into the System for Award Management (SAM) in late July 2012. Your ability to apply for an i3 grant, via Grants.gov, is contingent upon an active SAM registration. Current registrants do not need to do anything right away, but we ask that you confirm that your account is active. 43

44. Applying Through Grants.gov To apply for an i3 grant, go to the “Apply for Grants” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. Next, follow the step-by-step application instructions. The CFDA number you will enter for Step 1 is 84.411. If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and keep a record of it. You can also contact them via email at support@grants.gov.support@grants.gov 44

45. Cautions from Previous Competitions UNDERSTAND ELIGIBILITY – Applicants will be declared ineligible for funding if they do not meet all of the eligibility requirements WRITE CLEARLY – Peer reviewers can only judge applications based upon what is written, clearly and comprehensibly, in the application submission READ THE NOTICES and FAQs, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND PLAN AHEAD 45

46. Cautions from Previous Competitions UPLOAD PDFs – All files uploaded into Grants.gov must be in PDF format; all other file formats may not convert properly SUBMIT EARLY – Applications submitted after the August 17 th (4:30:00pm Washington, DC time) deadline will be rejected READ THE NOTICES and FAQs, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND PLAN AHEAD 46

47. Other Important Resources Investing in Innovation Website: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html Notice of Final Priorities & Notice of Final Revisions to Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria Notice Inviting Applications Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) i3 Applicant Information Sheet http://www.seiservices.com/i3AIS2012/http://www.seiservices.com/i3AIS2012/ Frequently Asked Questions i3 At-A-Glance (Quick Reference) Foundation Registry i3 https://www.foundationregistryi3.org/https://www.foundationregistryi3.org/ All questions about i3 may be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notices in the Federal Register. 47

48. Questions & Answers 48